Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (
More info?)
Rich C. Velay wrote:
> "Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:__0hc.185515$oR5.57612@pd7tw3no...
>
>>Rich C. Velay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
>>>>>simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
>>>>>improvement.
>>>>
>>>>Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice,
>
> but
>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of
>
> AD&D,
>
>>>for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes,
>
> races
>
>>>and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why, because it's missing most of the "if you're playing as an elf on a
>>rainy Thursday in April, then you do this" sorts of rules?
>
>
> RCV: Yes, those sorts of rules that sought to balance the inate powers
> of races vs class and level restrictions.
>
>
>>Personally,
>>I've found that 3/3.5E brought much needed logic and consistency to the
>>game.
>
>
> RCV: And you are quite welcome to your opinion.
>
>
>>You shouldn't *have* to spend half the session looking up all of
>>the exceptions to the rules, and the great bulk of the race/class
>>restrictions were completely arbitrary and didn't add much to the game
>>except a general sense of "well, what good reason is there that I can't
>>do that?". If you're greatly offended by the notion of dwarven Paladins,
>>you're free to ban them from you're game, but why should the core rules
>>state that you can't do that?
>
>
> RCV: Because that's what the rules say. If the designer felt that
> allowing a race with many inate abilities to play a class with a great
> number of its own special abilities, then he would have. However, for game
> balance purposes, classes with a great number of inate abilities were
> restricted to races that had no, or very few, special abilities.
How is this an argument against 3E then? 3E has balanced the special
abilities of classes and races so that you don't *need* to place
arbitrary restrictions on race/class combinations. Out of curiousity,
have you actually played a 3/3.5E campaign, or are you just dead-set in
your ways and not about to try anything new? I'm playing in my second
3.x campaign currently, and I think 3.5 has cleaned up pretty much all
of the balance issues that were present in 3E (which were mostly related
to arcane spells, IMO).
3/3.5E hasn't removed *all* of the restrictions on classes, it's just
pared them down to the bare minimum required by logic and consistency
(ie, from the description and characteristics of the class, it makes
sense that a Paladin must be lawful good, or that a Rogue cannot be lawful).
> I don't have any problem adhering to that - indeed I prefer it.
That's fine. Some people really do enjoy rules for the sake of rules, I
guess.
>
>
>>An odd race/class combination is a great
>>opportunity to develop an interesting backstory for your character.
>
>
> RCV: Many things can be used to form a back story - one certainly
> doesn't need infravision, poison and magic save bonus' and tunneling
> expertise in addition to all of the special abilities of a Paladin to form
> an interesting back story.
> Now, were I DMing someone who desperately wanted to play a Dwarven
> Paladin, I could sit down with them and figure something out, balancing one
> set of abilities against the other, to form a reasonable and fair character.
> [Along the lines, perhaps, of the Halfling "Paladin" in BG II, Mazzy...] I
> don't need a set of "rules" to allow me to exercise my creativity, nor to
> control my game.
You'd prefer to have to hack something together for unusual characters
instead of having it already covered in the core rules? If you're open
to bending the arbitrary 2E race/class rules, then why is it a bad thing
that they've been removed in 3E?
> But removing restrictions from the game, overall, is certainly not
> something I want in my game, nor, parenthetically, with regards to PnP, is
> it something I want to have to pay for, after having spent more than enough
> on 1st and 2nd ed materials....
A new core manual is roughly the same price as a PC game, and you'll be
using it long after the PC game is forgotten. For adventures and old
sourcebooks, there are conversion guides to turn them into 3/3.5E, so
they can be used again if you really want.
Anyway, at least there's a bright side for you - the bargain bins are
full of old 2E adventures and sourcebooks now, so if you want to stay
with it, it'll certainly be cheaper
>
> Rich
>
>
(
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram